General UK Defence Discussion

[dmereifield]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12 ... h-squeeze/

Brace yourselves for more cutbacks and/or delays in procurement, apparently. I may have been wrong about the Autumn statement, but surely Hammond will have to increase defence spending in his first proper Budget (March 2017)....

[zanahoria]

I've just seen that article in the Telegraph too. I wonder how long the government will be able to resist calls for the £5.5 bn sloshing around the DfID to be spent at home:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12 ... struggles/

I understand the importance of soft power, but I have a horrible feeling that the money the DfID spends could be used to greater effect to achieve its core mission to generate soft power: e.g. Greater funding of the BBC World Service, etc.

In the end, however, the deterrent effect of hard power should be the main concern and, like everyone else on here, I really wish legislation enabled some of the money to be diverted to the MoD.

[ArmChairCivvy]

walking around in a "candy shop"

is reflected in the fact that the EP 2014 total was for £ 162,885 mln and now it has gone to (with many of the announcements being political gesturing) " invest £178 billion in equipment over the next decade.”

""The Equipment Plan will be allocated £6.4 billion from the newly created Joint
Security Fund" covers only under a half of the difference whereas various types of efficiency savings (£ 8.6 bn) are in fact a bigger number.

[AstuteAssassin]

Think its about time we woke up and realised that projects like QE Carriers, T45, T26, Astutes, Dreadnoughts, Nukes, F-35s are just beyond our budget and instead focus on building a larger conventional military with advanced modern but cheaper off the shelf ships and aircraft, similarly to Germany, Japan, South Korea. Else sooner or later we'll have such small military we'll be nothing more than a regional power with very limited power projection.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I find the above a bit contradictory; regional powers most often are focussed on their region and power projection is often seen as the difference between that kind of power (mass armies, moving or at least reconnecting by land) and being able to "reach" further out.

The ones wiki lists near us are
France[GP][G7][G20][5][35][56]
Germany[GP][G7][G20][5][35][57]
Italy[GP][G7][G20][58][59][60][61]
United Kingdom[GP][G7][G20] [13][17][62]
Transcontinental regional powers[edit]
Transcontinental countries like Russia are able to exert regional influence in large areas of the world.
Russia[GP][BRICS][G20][33][35][63]
Turkey
, so the kit listed as "superfluous" is actually of the kind that makes the difference between us and the rest of the list (save for Russia, and in part for France).

[AstuteAssassin]

Sorry if it came across as abit contadictory. What i meant was essentially that the bits of kits listed as much as i like them and want us to have them, they're too expensive for us to have in the numbers necessary to significantly project military power outside of Europe whilst maintaining our standing commitments elsewhere around the world. E.g a QE Carrier group would tie up most if not all deployable T45s, T26s and F35s, which would mean gaps in our presense in other regions of the globe.
If the Gov will not signicantly increase defence spending then it should instead be buying larger numbers of cheaper bits of kit, that are proven and highly capable.

[ArmChairCivvy]

too expensive for us to have in the numbers necessary to significantly project military power outside of Europe whilst maintaining our standing commitments elsewhere around the world.

- thx, got the meaning
- operative word bolded

should instead be buying larger numbers of cheaper bits of kit, that are proven and highly capable

- but this is exactly what regional powers do?
- as they only need to be able to operate at the extremes of well defined (and fairly short) lines of communication

[marktigger]

I agree partially about buying of the shelf and that should not automatically = American. We should be looking at a proper defence industry strategy and long term planning so we can mitigate some of the rushed poor quality buys we have made in the past.
so not just the 5 yearly SDSR but planning projects 10+ years down the line at the lower end of the spectrum like small arms and artillery.
We also need to get back to proper open trials and testing before fielding instead of the fait a compli that has dominated defence procurement since the 1980's.
There are already talks of further budget cuts 2017/18.

[shark bait]

instead be buying larger numbers of cheaper bits of kit, that are proven and highly capable.

Sounds like a magic solution.

Unfortunately the quality kit does not come cheap, and the UK should prioritize quality over quantity.

Buying off the shelf is all well and good, but it can't be done all the time, can't have a stong military without a strong industry to support it. I would echo Marks comment, the MOD needs to pick a few strategic areas, and create a long term plan to develop and support. Aerospace, complex weapons and systems are the ovious starts, that's where the UK already excells. What else?

[Lord Jim]

More importantly HMG needs to be up front and honest about what it wants the Armed Forces to do as part of its grand strategy. For decades now HMG has used spin and other variations of smoke and mirrors to create impressive sound bites about the UK's defence capabilities and its commitments but has fails to provide anywhere near the level of funding to realise these aspirations. If the funding cannot be increased (actually it is probably going down) the HMG's aspirations must be reduced to match the funding, and HMG must be transparent about this. The general public aren't interested in defence anyway and there are no votes in it or so the experts say.

[Spinflight]

Aerospace, complex weapons and systems are the ovious starts, that's where the UK already excells. What else?

Probably easier to ask what we can't do anymore. Which is basically heavy armour, helicopters, APCs, small arms and lots of categories of ammunition.

Navally we produce almost everything, except maybe the artillery. Drones appear to be a weak spot but otherwise the aviation side of things is pretty strong. It's the land forces which, industrially, we simply don't have any more as the last decade or so has been all about light infantry and UOR procured vehicles from all over the place.

Hence the Army deciding it is going to re-equip and finally dip it's toe into mechanised medium weight rather than armoured infantry makes little sense. Frankly we'd be better economically off buying them a few trucks and waiting to see what the future holds.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the MOD needs to pick a few strategic areas, and create a long term plan to develop and support. Aerospace, complex weapons and systems are the ovious starts

Looked at the 2012 Defence Industrial Strategy... and it was all about the procurement approach. Quite a switch from the earlier one that actually listed industries/ technologies that should be in focus. The latter was akin to Chinas approach, in which about 20 areas/ technologies have been listed as key to closing the technology "gap" with other major nations - the practical implementation there is that e.g. universities that focus on these areas get practically unlimited funding (whereas university funding as a whole can never be "unlimited").

[ArmChairCivvy]

For decades now HMG has used spin and other variations of smoke and mirrors to create impressive sound bites about the UK's defence capabilities and its commitments but has fails to provide

I would say the time horizon there has been overstated; the slippery slope was entered onto when the 1998 reviews implementation started to slip.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the last decade or so has been all about light infantry and UOR procured vehicles from all over the place.

Well put (though I do not agree with the conclusion that followed).
- reminds me very much of the "worlds first "mechanised" army" - in fact mainly motorised in todays terms - that in reality was a tiny spearhead of a large force focussed on imperial policing, and with equipment to match
- due to its size was quickly beaten, and fishing boats and yachts proved to be the key to regenerating the capability at scale (how many years did that take?)

[marktigger]

Think its about time we woke up and realised that projects like QE Carriers, T45, T26, Astutes, Dreadnoughts, Nukes, F-35s are just beyond our budget and instead focus on building a larger conventional military with advanced modern but cheaper off the shelf ships and aircraft, similarly to Germany, Japan, South Korea. Else sooner or later we'll have such small military we'll be nothing more than a regional power with very limited power projection.

we need home built projects like that to try and preserve a military industrial base. Personally I think we should be looking at diversification of suppliers to try and promote a regeneration of UK industry and with competition force prices down.

[marktigger]

Hence the Army deciding it is going to re-equip and finally dip it's toe into mechanised medium weight rather than armoured infantry makes little sense. Frankly we'd be better economically off buying them a few trucks and waiting to see what the future holds.

Hopefully the army will be serious about the mechanised force and not try and use it as a pseudo armoured infantry force.

but maybe looking at creating in simple terms Light, medium and heavy brigades aspiring to build to divisions might be a way ahead to create a sustainable force with command at all levels able to adapt to working with elements from all 3 but also being able to deploy a credible force in all 3 at same time.

[Luke jones]

Im a longtime lurkerhere and have a question aimed at no particular commentator.
Many posters on here constantly talk about cuts and the diffcult fiscal reality we find ourselves in. Opposed to that view are Fallon and MOD constantly trotting out the circa 180 billion being spent on new equipment and support over this ten year period. Now, if this sum is split 50/50 between new equipment and support( no idea if this is the percentage split) that means 9billion per annum is available for new gear.
Thus then may be split as 3 billion for each of the three services ( i appreciate the split may not be a third exactly)
If this is the case(???) What exactly is this being spent on this year???
It seems like an awfull lot of money and doesnt square with the reality of what we see being spent?
Regards all

[The Armchair Soldier]

Labour planning more warplanes, Navy ships and troops as it plots change to NATO spending formula

Britain's armed forces could get more warplanes, Navy ships and troops under plans being drawn-up by Labour, we can reveal.

The party is plotting a major overhaul of defence spending which could unlock a fresh cash bonanza for the military.

Under NATO rules, the Government must pump 2% of annual national income into defence every year.

But it only meets the spending target by counting pots of money previously excluded from the total, according to independent number-crunchers.

Shadow Defence Secretary Nia Griffith is considering switching to the old method – which would mean ministers having to fork out more on troops and hardware.

Read More: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/la ... ar_twitter

[RetroSicotte]

Would not trust them in power still.

However, if they exert enough pressure to make the Tories go back to the old method to retain votes, then it will be a good outcome.

[shark bait]

Its about time there is an opposition on defense, cant see that happening with its current leadership though.

[Pseudo]

Would not trust them in power still.

I'm a lifelong Labour voter and though it pains me to say it, I concur.

However, if they exert enough pressure to make the Tories go back to the old method to retain votes, then it will be a good outcome.

Doubtful. The party leadership aren't particularly interested in the military beyond student union anti-trident and anti-western intervention rhetoric. Which is a shame because hitting the government on its stuffing the defence budget to meet the 2% target could give them a bit of decent press on defence and security. Not enough to redress Corbyn's support for Irish nationalism come the next general election, but it'd be a start.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The party leadership aren't particularly interested in the military beyond student union anti-trident and anti-western intervention rhetoric.

Indeed. The previous shadow DefSec invited me to the Party Conference (I am not involved with Labour, btw), but of course the first thing was clearing the old team out and when I arrived nothing had been handed over (not admitted)... had a good time in Brighton regardless

The "moral" of the story is that they are not interested (as per Pseudo, above) in building up any defence credentials or credibility.

[Lord Jim]

That goes for nearly all politicians. Defence is a political PR tool to them, and even loss of life over the past decades has not changed this. If we are actually going to get somewhere regarding improving our Armed Forces, the Government and MoD need to stop using words such as "Capability" and "Effect" and start actually talking numbers or capacity to do things! With this I mean everything from hardware to personnel to ammunition and spares. You want to deploy a Brigades for so many months on high tempo operations. Fine to do that you are going to need the following........... , nothing less will allow it. Oh the Treasury saying that is too expensive well either tell them to cough up or change your aspirations to say a Battalion deployed for the same period. But that sound like we are no longer a real player on the world stage! So again tell the Treasury to cough up the funds or accept your aspirations are a fantasy and live with it publically. But the Media will hang us out to dry. It will pass in 48 hrs from the announcement, we all no defence carries no weight in elections' anymore.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Now that Intelligence budgets are used to prop up the other numbers, to get to 2%, this would fit here (those who know have identified an online publishing house as a tool in covert/ subversive influencing):

"Sir Richard Dearlove, who ran the secret service for five years from 1999, stood down from his position as convener of the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar (CIS) alongside Stefan Halper, a former policy adviser at the White House, and historian Peter Martland.

A new digital publishing house, Veruscript, has been set up to help cover some of the CIS’ costs. It is here that concerns over Russian funding have arisen.

The seminars, which are held at Corpus Christi college, debate central issues in modern espionage and are often led by senior figures in the security industry.

Sources told the Daily Telegraph there were concerns of undue influence over debates on national security."

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/de ... rs-russian

[shark bait]

When did Intelligence budgets start propping up the 2%?